As Weaver and Zimmerman continue their attempt to justify shunning ordnung breakers, they continue redefining words that Paul used in 1 Corinthians 5:1–12, just as they did regarding the word “covetousness.” The authors redefine some of Paul’s “exclusionary sins” by claiming they are actually prohibitions against disobeying church leaders, which of course is a “sin unto death.” For example, the next sin they define from Paul’s list in 1 Corinthians 5:11 is “railer”:
The word we’d use today [for the KJV “railer”] is “reviler”. This is a person who verbally tears someone down, perhaps with accusations, insults, or slander.
So, what if someone reviles the ministry [church leaders], accuses them of something like hypocrisy, and tears them down verbally? If that isn’t reviling, then what is? (p. 159).
It seems as if the authors may have had some experience with people they would label as “revilers.” Perhaps they would call me a reviler for finding fault with their book. Regardless, their obvious implication is that criticizing Plain bishops and ministers can be an alleged “sin unto death” that demands excommunication and shunning. There is, however, a big difference between accusing Plain ministers of evident false teaching or hypocrisy—what could be an act of obedience to Jesus’ commandment to “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Matt. 7:15)—and the sin of being a reviler.
The definition of the verb “to revile” is to “criticize in an abusive or angrily insulting manner.” Jesus was reviled by some who watched Him die on the cross (see 1 Pet. 2:23). Revilers unjustly find fault. Jesus found plenty of faults with the scribes and Pharisees, but He never committed the sin of being a reviler.
No Christian should associate with a reviler who professes to be a Christian. But to claim that anyone who, having evidence, accuses a bishop or minister of false teaching or hypocrisy is a “reviler” constitutes a gross twisting of Paul’s warning.
Galatians 5:19–21
Weaver and Zimmerman continue to define other alleged “sins unto death” as they move from 1 Corinthians 5 to Paul’s list of exclusionary sins in Galatians 5:19–21, which Paul labels “deeds of the flesh”:
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Weaver and Zimmerman claim that “it is the responsibility of the church to punish these sins to help the sinner to repentance and to keep the church pure” (p. 160). Actually, however, Paul says nothing in this passage about the church “punishing” these sins. In fact, nowhere in the New Testament are churches or church leaders are instructed to punish sins. Beyond that, just six verses later Paul wrote, “Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted” (Gal. 6:1).
Paul seems to have thought that the sins he listed would be quite rare in the church. That should be the case if, generally speaking, the true believers were avoiding those who were practicing the “deeds of the flesh,” as Paul implies that they should do in 1 Corinthians 5:11. When the majority of the church members, or even a large minority of them, are practicing the “deeds of the flesh” and the rest are tolerating it, that’s a sign of a church full of unregenerate members. The solution to that problem is the new birth and the Word of God, not ordnungs.
Coming back to Paul’s warning regarding the deeds of the flesh in Galatians 5:19–21, any godly church leader would do the same as Paul. That is, he would proclaim the gospel and also warn his church members that those who practice the deeds of the flesh will not inherit God’s kingdom. Usually, when church leaders preach holiness, those who are not genuinely born again and who don’t want to repent just remove themselves. They don’t feel comfortable around people who are following Jesus. However, in the event that they don’t remove themselves, a good shepherd would personally confront them. At that point, such folks will either repent and become born again or leave the fellowship.
A Redefinition of Idolatry
Next, Weaver and Zimmerman redefine idolatry (also found in Paul’s exclusionary list of sins in Galatians 5), claiming that “rejecting the guidelines of the church can be idolatry, since the Bible says covetousness is idolatry (Col. 3:5; Eph. 5:5)” (p. 160).
They base this far-fetched idea on their previous, erroneous claim that desiring or owning anything that the ordnung forbids is covetousness. And, since covetousness is idolatry according to Colossians 3:5 and Ephesians 5:5, that means (to Weaver and Zimmerman) that desiring or owning anything that the ordnung forbids is also idolatry. And since idolatry is a “sin unto death,” desiring or owning anything that the ordnung forbids should be punished as idolatry by church leaders.
This inventive scripture twisting serves to justify the undue authority that Plain leaders exercise over their churches. Disobeying them, or the arbitrary rules of the ordnung, is a “sin unto death.”
Moreover, according to Weaver and Zimmerman, “Refusing to accept correction from the church [leaders] is also [idolatry].” Why? Because Weaver and Zimmerman have found an Old Testament verse, 1 Samuel 15:23, that says, “Stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry” (p. 160).
Here, Weaver and Zimmerman extract an Old Testament verse from its context to exploit it for their intended purpose. Any resistance to correction from church leaders and their ordnung rules becomes a manifestation of “stubbornness,” which makes it also idolatry. It is yet another “sin unto death” related to submission to church leaders and man-made rules, punishable by excommunication and shunning.
But is this really what Paul was thinking when he listed idolatry in Galatians 5 as one of the sins that can result in one not inheriting God’s kingdom? And wasn’t the stubbornness of which the prophet Samuel spoke—recorded in 1 Samuel 15:22–23 and cited by the authors—related to disobedience to God’s clear instructions rather than man’s? Besides, isn’t the stubbornness of church leaders who refuse to listen to the clear teaching of Scripture because of their devotion to Plain tradition also idolatry?
A Redefinition of Witchcraft
Employing the same Old Testament verse from 1 Samuel, Weaver and Zimmerman next equate non-submission to church leaders with witchcraft, another “exclusionary sin” Paul lists in Galatians 5:
The Bible says, “Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry” (1 Sam 15:23). Is rebellion against the church [leaders] like witchcraft in God’s sight? Is refusing correction idolatry? We cannot take this lightly (p. 161).
Perhaps Weaver and Zimmerman realize that they are pushing the limits of plausible Scripture interpretation, so they exercise a small amount of caution by asking a question rather than making a declaration. But they seem to imply that rebellion against ordnung-enforcing church leaders is equivalent to witchcraft, and that refusing correction from ordnung-enforcing church leaders is equivalent to idolatry. Another incredible stretch of logic and Scripture.
More Redefined Sins
Chapter 8 of Why Be Plain? continues with similar reinterpretations of the specific “deeds of the flesh” Paul lists in Galatians 5:19–21. In the end, 7 of 17 deeds (in the KJV) are redefined so as to relate to not submitting to ordnung-enforcing church leaders or causing disunity in the church in some way.
For example, when the authors mention “variance” (the eighth deed in the list in the KJV), they rightly define it as “quarreling and contentions,” but they connect this behavior only to church relations: “These types of people in the church cause endless problems and cannot be left unpunished [by excommunication and shunning] lest they tear asunder the church” (p. 161).
When the authors mention “emulations” (ninth in the KJV list), they rightly define it as “jealousy and envy,” but again they describe it only in church relations. They tell their readers that “another way envy can cause problems is when members are jealous of the authority of the ministry. Like Korah, they might gather against the leaders and try to take church matters into their own hands” (p. 161).
The message is unmistakable to those who might entertain the idea of not submitting to church leaders: when Korah and his followers rebelled against God-ordained leadership, “the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up” (Num. 16:32). Those who challenge Plain church leaders will similarly be cast into hell.
When the authors mention “strife” (#11 in the KJV), they once again describe it only by reference to church relations: “Those who stir up conflict and disunity in the church are not lead [sic] by the Spirit, but by the flesh” (p. 161). Does strife never occur outside of churches?
“Seditions” (#12 in the KJV) is properly defined as “causing dissension and division,” and the authors warn, “Those who stir up dissension and conflict in a Scriptural church [that is, a Plain church] are guilty of a sin that the Bible says cannot enter God’s kingdom” [sic]. It must be perfectly okay to stir up dissension and conflict in a non-Plain church!
“Heresies” (#13 in the KJV) are properly defined as “factions” (as the word is translated in the NASB) or a “sect, which is a group within the church who divide themselves from the rest of the congregation” (p. 162).
Can you see the pattern? In this rendition, anyone who causes disunity in the church is to be expelled, and when a church has hundreds of man-made rules and traditions, questioning any of them is “causing disunity,” a “sin unto death,” and grounds for excommunication. This is why Plain leaders wield so much authority and why Plain people cower under their authority. To not submit to them and the ordnung they enforce is a sure ticket to hell.
Weaver and Zimmerman summarize all they’ve written regarding the 17 “sins unto death” listed in Galatians 5:19–21 by saying,
So there we have Paul’s list of wickedness that cannot enter God’s kingdom [sic]. And in 1 Corinthians 5 he wrote, “Put away from yourselves that wicked person” (p. 162).
That gives Plain leaders the right to rule without challenge and to excommunicate and shun those who question them or any rule of the ordnung. And that opens the door to various forms of abuse that go hidden and unreported to the outside world. Thousands of ex-Plain people have heartbreaking stories of abuse, and tens of thousands of currently Plain people could tell you theirs if they weren’t fearful of doing so. I am reminded of the famous words of Lord Acton: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Two Final Scriptures on Avoidance
The next New Testament passage that Weaver and Zimmerman cite to justify shunning and excommunication for transgressions against the ordnung is Titus 3:9–11:
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
Although Paul called for the expulsion, after two warnings, of those who cause strife and disputes because of their fixation on “foolish … unprofitable and worthless” controversies regarding genealogies (most likely, Jewish genealogies) and the Mosaic Law, Weaver and Zimmerman find application to anyone who engages “in controversies and quarrels,” which, of course, would be anyone who questions the ordnung or Plain traditions. Such people should be “expelled from the church and shunned” (p. 164).
The last passage cited is Romans 16:17:
Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.
When Paul mentioned “teaching which you learned,” he was referring to Holy Spirit–inspired, biblical, gospel teaching, not unbiblical human traditions based on scripture twisting and flawed logic. However, Weaver and Zimmerman, certain that the Plain churches are the only ones that are scriptural, write:
This does not mean that it is a sin to divide a “church” that has divorced Christ and married the world [that is, churches that allow car driving, certain technologies, and don’t enforce a Plain dress code. It is OK to divide them by promoting Plain traditions.]. However, stirring up division and strife in a Scriptural church [that is, a Plain church with a Plain ordnung] falls under the Bible’s list of sins unto death (pp. 164–165).
So anyone who challenges Plain leaders or Plain ordnungs is hell-bound. Is it any wonder why many who understand Plain leadership structures view Plain groups as destructive cults?
If You Love God, You Will Shun Your Own Children
Plain groups all practice varying degrees of shunning, and Weaver and Zimmerman appear to practice an Old Order Mennonite version. In their version, shunning involves not eating, drinking, or doing business with a shunned person, and “withdrawing from him as a spiritual brother in Christ.” But that does not mean avoiding him completely or not helping him if he has a need (see pp. 166–167).
Some Plain groups practice milder or more severe versions of shunning. I’ve heard of Plain groups who allow shunned persons to eat with them, but they require the shunned to sit at a different table separated by one inch from the main table. I’ve also heard of groups in which parents tell their shunned children not to attend their funerals.
The most tragic aspects of this shunning by Plain groups is that it consistently occurs over ordnung issues rather than biblical issues. And it is an even greater tragedy when such shunning is directed at members of one’s own family. That has happened countless times, which Weaver and Zimmerman admit “can be a heavy cross to bear” (p. 166).
When Weaver and Zimmerman attempt to explain why shunning rarely seems to bring the shunned person “back into the fold,” they blame church members who “do not fully believe in shunning and [who] sympathize with the sinner, strengthening him in his error’ (pp. 168–169). ‘
The actual reason why that phenomenon exists is because many, if not most, Plain people believe that shunning others over ordnung issues is unbiblical nonsense, but they are caught between their natural love for the shunning victims and their fear of being shunned themselves for not shunning the victims.
Surely, most Plain people believe in their hearts that it is wrong to shun former Plain church members who are active members of non-Plain churches and who are striving to obey Jesus’ commandments. They know such people are not on the road to hell, no matter what Plain leaders may say. But they are slaves to their Plain traditions, which require them to shun even their own adult children who begin attending non-Plain churches. They rob themselves of relationships with their own grandchildren! I wonder: what will they say to those children and grandchildren when they see them in heaven?
Weaver and Zimmerman want to perpetuate the grievous Plain practice of shunning family members who have transgressed man-made rules, and all under the guise of love for God:
Abraham was asked to kill his own son. Why? It was a test to prove to God that Abraham loved the Lord above all. While shunning certainly isn’t putting anyone on the altar, it can feel cruel, especially when it must be applied to friends and family. But the church must at times make this sacrifice, shunning their own erring sons and daughters to show that God is foremost—yes, even above their own children. Obedience to God is more important than pleasing those who have stumbled (p. 169).
That could be the most tragic paragraph found in Why Be Plain? Think of all the families that have been broken and robbed of one of the greatest blessings God has given to humanity, all because of man-made, unbiblical traditions perpetuated by Plain leaders, like Weaver and Zimmerman, who nevertheless claim that the ordnung promotes unity. How God’s heart must grieve over this unbiblical, man-made practice!
